Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[thesometimesaint]

But, I am not thinking about what may or may not be happening in other people's bedrooms, homosexual or otherwise. Unlike with you, I tend not to want to stick my nose, or the nose of the government, where it doesn't belong. Rather, I have been speaking generally to LDS beliefs/doctrine and public policy.on the matter.

 

I have been very clear about my belief that the government has no business sticking its nose in homosexual bedrooms and bathhouses and bars. What homosexuals do in privacy is their business. Instead, what I object to here and elsewhere is not only their making their private sexual behavior public, but even more so their sustained efforts to normalize their immoral behaviors and to get government endorsement and encouragement for their immoral behavior, and this in part by way of mangling and degrading the definition of marriage.

 

In this thread, where the doctrines and beliefs of the Church are relevant (I have attempted not to bring religion into the mix in debates on SSM where possible), I don't believe the Church has any business prying into the sexual affairs of homosexuals or heterosexuals except in so far as it is necessary in determining spiritual worthiness to remain members and to officiate in the priesthood and Church callings and receive higher ordinances. My objection here is not only to the attempts by former and current members to equate (make morally equivalent) homosexuality with heterosexuality in relation to the Church, but even more so their countenancing and encouraging gay sex by way of holy matrimony, and worse yet, pretending this is all in accordance with the will of God--as if God welcomes profanation of the sacred

 

So, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

As for your canard, you are correct that the promise of eternal increase isn't the only reason your current familial circumstances doesn't render my point moor regarding procreative sex--thereby making your objection a canard, though it is significant in terms of the Church (which is the context of this discussion), but not pertinent to the secular state (which wasn't pertinent to what I was saying at that time). There are other reasons in addition to the one you suggested and somewhat misapplied (see below).

 

In terms of the gospel, sex within the bonds of marriage is important to keeping families together. However, in the eternal scheme of things, gay and lesbian couples, including those with children, are not considered "families." Not only isn't there a genetic link to speak of that makes the couple "one", but God hasn't joined the couples together to make them "one." At best, they merely imitate eternal families. There is nothing beyond the grave for meaningfully keeping homosexual couples together, any more than there is for keeping good friends together. Even during mortal life there isn't a reason to keep homosexual couples together, particularly not through sex, since, as previously explained, gay sex is immoral, period, and it is not made moral through imitating heterosexual marriage. Accordingly, there is a spiritual and eternal reason not to keep gay couples together through sex since doing so would immerse them in immorality and sin.

 

The opposite is true for married heterosexual (see below). There is good reason to keep them "one" through sex and otherwise

 

Furthermore, in terms of the gospel, and in regards to the creation/temple symbolism of heterosexual intercourse (as opposed to gay sex), sex between husband and wife is a way of ritualistically honoring their multifaceted "oneness" if not also a way of renewing their new and everlasting covenants regardless whether procreation occurs or not. Think of it sacredly as like unto the priest attending the temple often. The same in no way applies to gay couples.

 

While the points above may not relate to secular public policy, there are a variety of good reasons for governments to promote procreative sex, or heterosexual sex, within the bonds of marriage even in cases of heterosexual couples who are no longer able to procreate (thus further rendering your objection a canard), whereas there isn't good reason to promote gay sex. Aside from the inanity of using exceptions to disprove the rule, and equating the heterosexual exceptions with the homosexual rule, as well as ignoring the impracticality of legislating and administering out heterosexual exceptions, there is an excellent article that speak well to the subject. It was published in the Harvard Law Review, and is called "What is Marriage." See in particular section D.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The answer is in your opening claim " I tend not to want to stick my nose, or the nose of the government, where it doesn't belong".

Edited September 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

My objection here is not only to the attempts by former and current members to equate (make morally equivalent) homosexuality with heterosexuality in relation to the Church, but even more so their countenancing and encouraging gay sex by way of holy matrimony, and worse yet, pretending this is all in accordance with the will of God

Well I certainly hope that my name is on that list.

Edited September 18, 2014 by rockpond

[wenglund]

The answer is in your opening claim " I tend not to want to stick my nose, or the nose of the government, where it doesn't belong".

 

How so?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well I certainly hope that my name is on that list.

 

If you were truly proud to have your name listed in support of perversion and in open rebellion against the leaders and doctrines of the Church, you wouldn't be posting anonymously. 

 

I am proud to be doing the opposite, which is why I close each statement with my name.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

It is none of my or governments business what two consenting adults do between the bedsheets.

[Rodeo]

So are you attracted to women?

Oh yeah!

[wenglund]

It is none of my or governments business what two consenting adults do between the bedsheets.

 

Agreed. So?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rodeo]

I have read enough of Rodeo's posts to know that he isn't searching for an answer on whether being gay is a choice.  He started this thread as a ruse to push his agenda about gays and choice.  Everyone knows the internet is full of information and information.  When you are willing to ignore scientific information the AMA and AmericanPsychological Association if favor of right wing organizations who stated reason for their existence is antigay, then you are not really looking for truth.  And if you are not looking for truth you will not find it.  

 

If Rodeo could answer this ONE question, then I could believe that while wrong, he might be sincere.  Even though I have asked this repeatedly, he has NEVER answered it.  So one last time.

 

Why do members of the church who are gay choose to be celibate and live alone their entire lives without any companionship if being gay is just a choice?  Would you be willing to give up your life with your wife and family just so you could say you were gay?  Would anyone?

 

Now if Rodeo can not answer that question, then it is pretty obvious, he isn't really trying to seek understanding, and we  should all probably move on.

Only some members who are gay choose to be celibate and live their entire lives without any companioship. Others change their orientation or choose to have a partner and live in sin. I am honestly trying to get to the bottom of the whole issue, especially how it appears to me that one can change his or her attractions or that they can be influenced in life circumstances to choose those attractions/ behaviors. It seems that there are genuine people and organizations that believe one can change or choose their orientation and others who seem genuine that orientation is a biologic feature and absolutely cannot be physically changed and so there is no use to trying to change. Based on my own experiences and from watching and speaking with family members who are gay I am swayed to believe orientation is a choice.

[Tsuzuki]

I hope you don't. I think that you will be happier in the long term if you live a more chaste life.

I'm largely being facetious to illustrate the point that not even levels of attraction and desire are things that people have a choice over. However, I don't think that God cares about people's sex lives, and it would certainly be to my own advantage in a sex-positive religious community to have a higher (in my case, normal) level of initial sexual desire. I think that I would be happier in the long run if I did not live a more chaste life, though I fear I may be stuck with it.

[Rodeo]

What do people think of groups like Northstar International? http://northstarlds.org/

[wenglund]

II don't think that God cares about people's sex lives...

 

If so, then why did God implicitly make it his first commands to mankind? (Gen. 9:10-15)  Why did he set certain bounds on it in two of his 10 Commandments? (Exodus 20:14 and 17) I could go on (see the Topical Guide under adultery, fornication, chaste, lust, modesty, purity, virtue, etc.)

 

To use your words, "you don't know what you are talking about."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 18, 2014 by wenglund

[Tsuzuki]

It appears there is a promiscuity gene.

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014162

"Human sexual behavior is highly variable both within and between populations. While sex-related characteristics and sexual behavior are central to evolutionary theory (sexual selection), little is known about the genetic bases of individual variation in sexual behavior. The variable number tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism in exon III of the human dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) has been correlated with an array of behavioral phenotypes and may be predicatively responsible for variation in motivating some sexual behaviors, particularly promiscuity and infidelity."

[Tsuzuki]

If so, then why did God implicitly make it his first commands to mankind? (Gen. 9:10-15)  Why did he set certain bounds on it in two of his 10 Commandments? (Exodus 20:14 and 17) I could go on (see the Topical Guide under adultery, fornication, chaste, lust, modesty, purity, virtue, etc.)

 

To use your words, "you don't know what you are talking about."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Neither Genesis or Exodus are historical, and the Ten Commandments are laughable by today's standards.

[Rodeo]

It appears there is a promiscuity gene.

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014162

"Human sexual behavior is highly variable both within and between populations. While sex-related characteristics and sexual behavior are central to evolutionary theory (sexual selection), little is known about the genetic bases of individual variation in sexual behavior. The variable number tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism in exon III of the human dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) has been correlated with an array of behavioral phenotypes and may be predicatively responsible for variation in motivating some sexual behaviors, particularly promiscuity and infidelity."

Perhaps these people can get legislation passed that gives them automatic hall passes and that governments should provide brothels for them so that they can be protected in their natural circumstance.

Its all ridiculous. When are we going to get back to conservative morals and realize we ourselves are responsible for our choices?

[Daniel2]

Others change their orientation or choose to have a partner and live in sin. I am honestly trying to get to the bottom of the whole issue, especially how it appears to me that one can change his or her attractions or that they can be influenced in life circumstances to choose those attractions/ behaviors

I am not aware of anyone who claims to have "changed their orientation," including Ty Mansfield (the now-married founder of Northstar, whom I know personally) or Josh Weeds.

They both still acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay (attraction towards men), do not consider themselves "heterosexual," and choose to act contrary to their orientation because of their religious beliefs and feelings for their wives.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

What do people think of groups like Northstar International? http://northstarlds.org/

 

That these individuals however sincere their beliefs are misguided in their attempts to change sexual attraction. That from the psychological perspective their clients would be mentally better off being taught to accept their sexuality than trying, with very limited, if any, success to change it.

SEE http://secure.anglicancommunion.org/listening/book_resources/docs/Dreshcher%20Sexual%20Conversion%20Therapies.pdf

Edited September 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[JLHPROF]

Neither Genesis or Exodus are historical, and the Ten Commandments are laughable by today's standards.

 

But both are the word of God to man.

[JLHPROF]

I'm largely being facetious to illustrate the point that not even levels of attraction and desire are things that people have a choice over. However, I don't think that God cares about people's sex lives, and it would certainly be to my own advantage in a sex-positive religious community to have a higher (in my case, normal) level of initial sexual desire. I think that I would be happier in the long run if I did not live a more chaste life, though I fear I may be stuck with it.

 

Of course God cares about people's sex lives.  Unless you don't believe ANY of the Mormon scriptures to be the word of God, in which case, remind me again why you are a member of the Church?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 via political correctness and corrupt circuit judges.?  You really believe that every federal court in this country does not understand the constitution and is corrupt?  Let me repeat.  EVERY federal court????? Because every federal court judge has ruled that laws banning gay marriage goes against the 14th amendment.   Even the federal judge in Utah that was Mormon ruled against banning gay marriage laws.

 

Tell me you don't have an agenda.

Tell me CB, were in the constitution is marriage defined? Oh yeah that's right it is not defined. So it is left to the states to define it. There is nothing in the constitution that bars us from defining it. And you know it. You didnt even bother addressing my other points. Not that it matters you are gay and you have a huge dog in this fight.

I will never accept gay marriage as legitimate.

 

Anyway this has been hashed to death and I have no interest in revisiting it. The fact of the matter is that there seems to be a great many people that I have observed that seem to chose this life and most of it seems to be out of convince.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Tsuzuki]

Perhaps these people can get legislation passed that gives them automatic hall passes and that governments should provide brothels for them so that they can be protected in their natural circumstance.

No need. There are no laws against promiscuity or infidelity in the developed world, and if you're heterosexual, you can get married anywhere. As for brothels, they exist in some places (the LDS church even owned some at one time), though I'd like to see sex work legalized more broadly.

 

Its all ridiculous. When are we going to get back to conservative morals and realize we ourselves are responsible for our choices?

We're always responsible for our choices, but I hope we're never governed by a theocracy.

[rockpond]

Tell me CB, were in the constitution is marriage defined? Oh yeah that's right it is not defined. So it is left to the states to define it. There is nothing in the constitution that bars us from defining it. And you know it. You didnt even bother addressing my other points. Not that it matters you are gay and you have a huge dog in this fight.

I will never accept gay marriage as legitimate.

 

Anyway this has been hashed to death and I have no interest in revisiting it. The fact of the matter is that there seems to be a great many people that I have observed that seem to chose this life and most of it seems to be out of convince.

The 14th Amendment is what prevents you from defining marriage in the way that you seem to prefer.

Fortunately, you don't need to ever accept gay marriage. And I don't ever need to accept your definition of marriage.

[wenglund]

Neither Genesis or Exodus are historical, and the Ten Commandments are laughable by today's standards.

 

What is laughable to me is the inanity in dismissing the divine by fallacious appeal to man's myopic and fallible use of historicity, as well as the sheer blindness of lust to the ageless nature of certain precepts. There are few things more comedic, if not tragic, than a man using the wrong head to do his thinking. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tsuzuki]

But both are the word of God to man.

So are the Bhagavad Gita and the Book of the Law. Doesn't mean I have to swallow everything without thinking.

 

Of course God cares about people's sex lives.  Unless you don't believe ANY of the Mormon scriptures to be the word of God, in which case, remind me again why you are a member of the Church?

Very few of the unique Mormon scriptures actually say anything about sexuality. And I am a member of the church because I was born into it, and there are still enough things I like about it to preventing me from burning that particular bridge. I also have no problem living the law of chastity, though I hope that doesn't last long.

[rockpond]

Only some members who are gay choose to be celibate and live their entire lives without any companioship. Others change their orientation or choose to have a partner and live in sin. I am honestly trying to get to the bottom of the whole issue, especially how it appears to me that one can change his or her attractions or that they can be influenced in life circumstances to choose those attractions/ behaviors. It seems that there are genuine people and organizations that believe one can change or choose their orientation and others who seem genuine that orientation is a biologic feature and absolutely cannot be physically changed and so there is no use to trying to change. Based on my own experiences and from watching and speaking with family members who are gay I am swayed to believe orientation is a choice.

Rodeo -- are you aware that church policy is NOT to recommend that gay people marry someone if the opposite sex?

[Rodeo]

I am not aware of anyone who claims to have "changed their orientation," including Ty Mansfield (the now-married founder of Northstar, whom I know personally) or Josh Weeds.

They both still acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay (attraction towards men), do not consider themselves "heterosexual," and choose to act contrary to their orientation because of their religious beliefs and feelings for their wives.

Dont believe it. To have feelings for a wife would include attraction. People do change.